Dataset Information

Genomic profiling of breast tumours in relation to BRCA abnormalities and phenotypes.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Germline mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes account for a considerable fraction of familial predisposition to breast cancer. Somatic mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 have not been found and the involvement of these genes in sporadic tumour development therefore remains unclear.

Methods

The study group consisted of 67 primary breast tumours with and without BRCA1 or BRCA2 abnormalities. Genomic alterations were profiled by high-resolution (~7 kbp) comparative genome hybridisation (CGH) microarrays. Tumour phenotypes were analysed by immunohistochemistry on tissue microarrays using selected biomarkers (ER, PR, HER-2, EGFR, CK5/6, CK8, CK18).

Results

Classification of genomic profiles through cluster analysis revealed four subgroups, three of which displayed high genomic instability indices (GII). Two of these GII-high subgroups were enriched with either BRCA1- or BRCA2-related tumours whereas the third was not BRCA-related. The BRCA1-related subgroup mostly displayed non-luminal phenotypes, of which basal-like were most prominent, whereas the other two genomic instability subgroups BRCA2- and GII-high-III (non-BRCA), were almost entirely of luminal phenotype. Analysis of genome architecture patterns revealed similarities between the BRCA1- and BRCA2 subgroups, with long deletions being prominent. This contrasts with the third instability subgroup, not BRCA-related, where small gains were more prominent.

Conclusions

The results suggest that BRCA1- and BRCA2-related tumours develop largely through distinct genetic pathways in terms of the regions altered while also displaying distinct phenotypes. Importantly, we show that the development of a subset of sporadic tumours is similar to that of either familial BRCA1- or BRCA2 tumours. Despite their differences, we observed clear similarities between the BRCA1- and BRCA2-related subgroups reflected in the type of genomic alterations acquired with deletions of long DNA segments being prominent. This suggests similarities in the mechanisms promoting genomic instability for BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated tumours, possibly relating to deficiency in DNA repair through homologous recombination. Indeed, this feature characterized both familial and sporadic tumours displaying BRCA1- or BRCA2-like spectrums of genomic alterations. The importance of these findings lies in the potential benefit from targeted therapy, through the use of agents leading to DNA double-strand breaks such as PARP inhibitors (olaparib) and cisplatin, for a much larger group of patients than the few BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutation carriers.

SUBMITTER: Stefansson OA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2750106 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Differences in genomic profiling and immunity-associated parameters between germline BRCA and non-BRCA carriers in TNBC with high tumor burden remain unexplored. This study aimed to compare the differences and explore potential prognostic predictors and therapeutic targets. Methods: The study cohort included 21 consecutive TNBC cases with germline BRCA1/2 mutations and 54 non-BRCA carriers with a tumor size ≥ 2 cm and/or ≥1 affected lymph nodes. Differences in clinicopathological characteristics and genomic profiles were analyzed through next-generation sequencing. Univariate Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression model were applied to survival analysis. Immunohistochemistry was used to confirm the consistency between CCNE1 amplification and cyclin E1 protein overexpression. Results: The cohort included 16 and five patients with germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, respectively. Patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations were diagnosed at a significantly younger age and were more likely to have a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer. Six non-BRCA carriers (11.11%) carried germline mutations in other cancer susceptibility genes, including five mutations in five homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway genes (9.26%) and one mutation in MSH3 (1.85%). Somatic mutations in HRR pathway genes were found in 22.22 and 14.29% of the non-BRCA and BRCA carriers, respectively. PIK3CA missense mutation (p = 0.046) and CCNE1 amplification (p = 0.2) were found only in the non-BRCA carriers. The median tumor mutation burden (TMB) was 4.1 Muts/Mb, whereas none of the cases had high microsatellite instability (MSI). BRCA status did not affect disease-free survival (DFS, p = 0.15) or overall survival (OS, p = 0.52). CCNE1 amplification was an independent risk factor for DFS in non-BRCA carriers with TNBC (HR 13.07, 95% CI 2.47-69.24, p = 0.003). Consistency between CCNE1 amplification and cyclin E1 protein overexpression was confirmed with an AUC of 0.967 for cyclin E1 signal intensity. Conclusions: We found differences in genetic alterations between germline BRCA and non-BRCA carriers with TNBC and a high tumor burden. TMB and MSI may not be suitable predictors of TNBC for immune checkpoint inhibitors. Notably, CCNE1 amplification is a novel potential prognostic marker and therapeutic target for non-BRCA carriers with TNBC. Cyclin E1 may be used instead of CCNE1 to improve clinical applicability.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Several high-density oligonucleotide microarray platforms are available for genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) detection and microarray-based comparative genomic hybridisation (array CGH), which may be used to detect copy number aberrations in human tumours. As part of the EuroBoNeT network of excellence for research on bone tumours (eurobonet.eu), we have evaluated four different commercial high-resolution microarray platforms in order to identify the most appropriate technology for mapping DNA copy number aberrations in such tumours. FINDINGS: DNA from two different cytogenetically well-characterized bone sarcoma cell lines, representing a simple and a complex karyotype, respectively, was tested in duplicate on four high-resolution microarray platforms; Affymetrix Genome-Wide Human SNP Array 6.0, Agilent Human Genome CGH 244A, Illumina HumanExon510s-duo and Nimblegen HG18 CGH 385 k WG tiling v1.0. The data was analysed using the platform-specific analysis software, as well as a platform-independent analysis algorithm. DNA copy number was measured at six specific chromosomes or chromosomal regions, and compared with the expected ratio based on available cytogenetic information. All platforms performed well in terms of reproducibility and were able to delimit and score small amplifications and deletions at similar resolution, but Agilent microarrays showed better linearity and dynamic range. The platform-specific analysis software provided with each platform identified in general correct copy numbers, whereas using a platform-independent analysis algorithm, correct copy numbers were determined mainly for Agilent and Affymetrix microarrays. CONCLUSIONS: All platforms performed reasonably well, but Agilent microarrays showed better dynamic range, and like Affymetrix microarrays performed well with the platform-independent analysis software, implying more robust data. Bone tumours like osteosarcomas are heterogeneous tumours with complex karyotypes that may be difficult to interpret, and it is of importance to be able to well separate the copy number levels and detect copy number changes in subpopulations. Taking all this into consideration, the Agilent and Affymetrix microarray platforms were found to be a better choice for mapping DNA copy numbers in bone tumours, the latter having the advantage of also providing heterozygosity information.